The first part Abi Morgan's Tsunami, the Aftermath (BBC2) receives much praise in today's papers for its skilful depiction of 2004's appalling natural disaster.
In the Telegraph, James Walton praises Morgan's gift for translating "a vast and complicated series of events not just into drama (which is easy enough) but into very good drama (which is, of course, much harder). The individual family tragedies depicted, he says, were clearly intended to be representative, but were "far too humanly convincing (and well-acted) ever to seem like mere illustrations".
Gerard Gilbert in the Independent, though impressed by the reconstruction of the catastrophe itself, was less convinced by the drama as a whole. The story, he felt, lacked the clear-cut baddies that Morgan's award-winning Sex Traffic boasted in spades, and the human stories drew on stock characterisations that even with a very strong cast "just weren't that involving, especially when the legal disclaimer had warned us that they were fictional composites".
Our own Lucy Mangan was much more impressed with a "beautifully modulated" drama "eschewing histrionics". It contained "only excellent actors and performances", she felt, and "every scene had a point."
And yet, for all her praise, Mangan's review ends with a series of worried questions. Do we "have the right to have tragedies like this transformed into entertainment?" Is it a necessary part of coming to terms with the event? Is it too soon? Will families welcome the implicit tribute to their suffering and courage?
She hopes that the second part of the drama, due in December, will settle her unease. In the meantime, have you folks reached a settled conclusion about whether Tsunami, and this kind of disaster-faction, is a legitimate response to real-life tragedy?
